On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Vladimir Rusinov <vrusi...@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Others will follow later in separate patches. Or is it preferred to have one
> huge patch submitted?

Please yes. One change makes little sense.

>> Personally, I think this is not important, but if you want to do it, I'd
>> follow the suggestion in the thread to rename all functions and leave
>> the old names as aliases or wrappers of some kind.
> I think I agree with Michael Paquier: "Better to do breakages in a single
> release rather than spreading them across releases.".
> There's going to be a lot of broken scripts following pg_xlog rename, so I
> think it makes sense to just drop functions as well.

For consistency that makes sense in my view. But I won't be too noisy
as well if people think that we should keep aliases for compatibility.

> We don't maintain pg_xlog -> pg_wal symlink, do we?

This part would be a mess for base backups, that's why we didn't do
it. Symlinks are equivalent to empty directories in the pg_basebackup
world. So by having one you would very likely break your backup *and*
restore tools silently.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to